Jerusalem is NOT ‘disputed’ territory

Here’s the Washington Post on the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, emphasis added:

Ever since the administration was blindsided by Israel’s March 9 announcement that it intends to build 1,600 housing units in a disputed area of Jerusalem, U.S. officials have pressed Israel to take actions to encourage Palestinians to attend indirect talks, including canceling the project, making concrete gestures such as a prisoner release and adding substantive rather than procedural issues to the agenda for talks. Some U.S. requests have not been made public.

“Disputed”? This description implies that Israel and the Arabs both have some kind of legal claim over Jerusalem. But the fact of the matter is that Jerusalem is not by any means “disputed”. This is simply false. It is a simple and uncontroversial point of fact under international law that Israel has no legal claim to Jerusalem, that Jerusalem is rather undisputed Palestinian territory, and that Israel’s occupation of the city is illegal, in violation of both the Fourth Geneva Convention and numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Israel today controls Jerusalem because it invaded and occupied the West Bank in 1967. Subsequently, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 242, which emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, emphasized that member states have a commitment to abide by the U.N. Charter, and called for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied” during the June 1967 war.

In May 1968, the Security Council passed resolution 252, which declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “invalid” and called upon Israel “to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”.

In July 1969, the Security Council passed resolution 267, noting that Israel had since “taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”. It reaffirmed “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible” and deplored Israel’s further violations of U.N. resolutions, censured “in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, and confirmed “that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status”, and urgently called on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem.

Security Council 271 of September 1969 again reaffirmed the principle of the inadmissibility under international law of the acquisition of territory by war, describing Jerusalem as being under “military occupation” by Israel and condemning Israel’s continued violation of previous resolutions.

Resolution 298 of September 1971 again reaffirmed the principle, deplored Israel’s continued violation of U.N. resolutions, and confirmed that Israel’s attempts to annex Jerusalem “are totally invalid”.

Resolution 446 of March 1979 affirmed “once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention … is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel, including Jerusalem“, determined “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity” (emphasis added).

Resolution 452 of July 1979 again deplored Israel’s continued violation of Security Council resolutions and again emphasized that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”. It again also noted that Jerusalem is included in “the occupied Arab territories”.

Resolution 465 of March 1980 again condemned Israel’s settlement policy, which violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and U.N. Security Council resolutions, and again reaffirmed that Israel’s annexation attempts “have no legal validity” and constitutes “a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

Resolution 471 of June 1980 once again reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem“, and once again called upon Israel to end its illegal occupation of those territories, including Jerusalem.

Resolution 476 of June 1980 again deplored Israel’s continued violation of international law and reaffirmed “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and reaffirmed Israel’s annexation measures “have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention” and were “null and void”.

Resolution 478 of August 1980 again censured Israel’s continued violation of international law and again reaffirmed that its annexation attempts were “null and void”.

Resolutions 592 of December 1986, 605 of December 1987, 607 of January 1988, 636 of July 1989, 694 of May 1991, 726 of January 1992, 799 of December 1992 all again reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to occupied Arab territory, including Jerusalem.

In July 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s decision to build a wall in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, which concluded that “all these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and that Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power”, that the construction of the wall in those territories is “illegal”, and that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, similarly “have been established in breach of international law.”

So what, exactly, is it the Washington Post would have its readers believe there is a “dispute” over? There is absolutely no dispute whatsoever, and it remains an uncontroversial point of fact under international law that Jerusalem is occupied Arab territory from which Israel must withdraw.

The closest the Post comes to acknowledging this fact, in this particular example, is (emphasis added):

Reports from Israel differed on the significance of the new approval, and U.S. officials said they were seeking “clarification” from the Israeli government. Netanyahu has defended Israel’s right to build in East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed in 1967 in an act not recognized internationally, but the Obama administration has urged him to ensure that housing projects there do not spoil the atmosphere for talks.

See, the description of Jerusalem as “disputed” could perhaps be sustainable so long as Israel’s annexation is “not recognized internationally”, which is no doubt why the Post declines to impart upon its readers the fact that — far from merely not being recognized — there is an international consensus that Jerusalem is occupied Arab land.

Were the Post and the rest of the mainstream media to actually disclose such facts to its readers, it could no longer use such descriptions as “disputed” to describe land illegally occupied by Israel. And that would just cause problems for U.S. policy, so it’s best just to stick to the formula and not rock the both with things like facts and principled adherence honesty and accuracy in reporting.

Like what you're reading?

Sign up now to keep up with my latest work and to stay updated about my forthcoming book, Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

You can unsubscribe at any time, and I respect your privacy (I hate spam, too).

Please share!

What an arabist you are. You ignore all the terror, violence and wars perpetrated on Israel since before the turn of the 20th century. Crawl back in your little Jew-Hating hole; or better yet, find a democratic Muslim country to live in.

The contents of this article are bereft of merit. The UN Security Council consists of the world’s leading imperialist powers. They can hardly be portrayed as purveyors of “international law.” Noam Chomsky has rightly termed the emissions of the UNSC as a “farce.”

Jerusalem does not belong to the Palestinians, No statement even by the Security Council remotely refers to this.

International law is based on treaties. The Covenant of the League of Nations and the Treaty of San Remo of 1919 awarded Jerusalem to the Palestinian Jews.

Customary international law also recognizes sovereign control over territory. Israel is the sovereign in Jerusalem.

The claim that the Coveneant of the League of Nations awarded Jerusalem to the Palestinian Jews is ludicrously false.

The claim that the Treaty of San Remo “awarded” Jerusalem to the Palestinian Jews is ludicrously false.

It’s instructive that mark elf argues the UN is to be dismissed because the UN consists of the world’s leading imperialist powers, but we are apparently supposed to accept that the League of Nations was not likewise.

You are wrong. Both the League of Nations, 1922 and the San Remo Peace conference, 1920 awarded all of Turkish-occupied Palestine to the Jewish people. The Treaty of Sevres, 1922 further confirmed this.

Nonsense. I challenge you to point out the clause of the League of Nations Covenent or Palestine Mandate you think “awarded” all of the West Bank to the Jewish people. I would point out that the ICJ has noted that the establishment of a mandate did not involve any transfer of territory or sovereignty. And the Treaty of Sevres was never even ratified by Turkey, so it’s irrelevant, even if it did say what you say it says (which it didn’t).

The Balfour Declaration did not “grant” Palestine to the Jews. Moreover, as the ICJ has observed, the establishment of a mandate under the League of Nations did not involve any transfer of territory or sovereignty.

You seem to ignore Noam Chomsky’s negative views about the UN Security Council. You seem to believe that the UNSC produces holy writ. Chomsky is the foremost analyst of world affairs in the last thirty years. How can you be so dismissive?

Jeremy your totally wrong. Jerusalem is liberated territory.
Jerusalem was never in history the capital of any Arab country.
Only Israel has it as its capitol in ancient and modern times.
Only when Israel liberated Jerusalem in 67 did Jerusalem become holy to the Arabs.
From 48 to 67 when the Arabs occupied East Jerusalem, all the Jews were kicked out, 58 Temples were burned to the ground and the Wailing wall was used as a urinal for the Arabs.
I would also point out about International law.
When Israel arrested Adolf Eichmann in 1960. The U.N and the 21 Arab countries demanded Israel send Eichmann back to Argentina.
The U.N said it was against international law for Israel to kidnap Eichmann from Argentina.
So tell me Mr Arabist Hammond! Whose Right, the U.N and the Arabs who defend Eichmann or Israel arresting this murderer Eichmann.
This is a case of good and evil. You side with evil as usual.
The U.N also condemmed Israel for the Entebee rescue and bombing Iraq’s nuclear facility in 81,.
Mr Hammond i advise you to read this article.http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3953601,00.html
Who are the Palestinians?

Dan, if you think I am “totally wrong”, you are welcome to point to any error in fact or logic I have made. The facts are as I’ve stated them: Jerusalem is “Palestinian occupied territory”. If you disagree with that, you are welcome to take it up with the International Court of Justice.

Mr Hammond, to quote Netanyahu, Jews were building in Jerusalem 3000 years ago and today they are building.

The Arabs teach, brainwash their children to yearn for martyrdom, then instigate, provoke and confront to get their wish. When they get their death wish they start howling unfair this is and try to blame Israel for the Arabs death cult. The Arabs also fire behind civilians at Israel wanting Israel to fire back to kill these civilians. Psychologists, psychiatrist and mental health professionals ought to study this demented Arab state of existence.

There is a primary historical fact, that must be established now.
There has never been, I repeat NEVER been, a civilization, Entity, or a nation referred to as “Palestine” There was never a Palestinian tribe, and there was never a Palestinian country in the Land of Israel to begin with!
Arab culture that allows honor killings to be legal. Israel is not for sale.
It is not a pie to be sliced up and served to a clan of killers and their supporters.
1: When did Jerusalem serve as a capitol to any Arab Country ? Never.
2: When did Jerusalem serve as a Palestinian capitol ? Never.
3: Jerusalem was never in history an Arab capital and never will be one.
4: How many times is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran? Zero.
Was Mohammed to so badly educated, he could not utter the word
“J-e-r-u-s-a-l-e-m”

Nevertheless, the Arabs have an equal right to self-determination as the Jews, and the fact remains that Jerusalem is legally “occupied Palestinian territory”. Again, if you have a problem with that, you are welcome to take it up with the ICJ.

Under international law, self-determination can take many forms. Becoming a state is only 1 of them. The Arabs already have 21 countries. why do you want another Arab country to be set up with the phony name Palestine?

When Israel arrested Adolf Eichmann in 1960. the U.N and the 21 Arab countries demanded Israel send Eichmann back to Argentina.
The U.N said it was against international law for Israel to kidnap Eichmann from Argentina.
So tell me Jeremy, whose right? The U.N or Israel.

Rarely have I read such a sloppy and error-filled article on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The UN Security Council resolutions are all misquoted.

The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem only, not all of Jerusalem.

The ICJ opinion is an advisory one that is not binding in international law.

This ICJ opinion contradicts three previous ICJ opinions on the question of the UN Charter provisions.

Customary international law recognizes Jerusalem as the historic religious capital of the Jewish people.

Jordan is recognized in certain international laws as the preferred owner of Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority disputes Jordan’s rights to Jerusalem.

UN Resolution 181 allocated Jerusalem to an international body under UN supervision and disputes Palestinian claims to the city.

The Palestinians dispute this UN resolution, claiming that East Jerusalem belongs to a fictional entity called “Palestine.”

The Vatican disputes the Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem.

So does Saudi Arabia.

Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, the UN Security Council has never again stated that East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Rather, it has stated that East Jerusalem is disputed territory whose status is to be resolved in direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

There are several other major mistakes in this article and lapses of logic that reflect badly on its author.

On the other hand, you persist in living in denial and refuse to repudiate your false article.

Instead you engage in ad hominem attacks.

Your wild assertion that Jerusalem is undisputed Palestinian territory under international law is absolutely assinine. Not even the Hamas makes this claim. Not one of the texts you cite and not even the ICJ contains this bald lie.

I am signalling my colleagues at the university to steer clear away from your Foreign Policy Journal which is saturated with fiction.

Have also sent full copies of these posts with your article to Finkelstein and Chomsky to alert them how you undermine their cause.

You haven’t shown even a single point of fact or logic from my article to be in error, and you (hypocritically) produce fiction yourself in your attempt to discredit it, such as that I ever employed an ad hominem argument.

Hmm… an interesting take on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but naive and partisan. Jerusalem has been inhabited by the Jews for at least 3,000 years, where they have constituted the majority from time immemorial. The invading Arab imperialists under Umar ibn Kattab in 638 AD imposed their sharia laws on the Jews and Greek/Byzantine Christians there. Arab rule ceased in 1071 with the invasion of the Seljuck Turks. Then came the Crusaders, Mongols, Mamelukes and Ottomans until 1918 when the British took over. History does not record the existence of indigenous Palestinian Arabs, only indigenous Jews and Christians plus an odd assortment of marauding Bedouins.

The British liberators handed all of Palestine, including Jerusalem, to the Jews and this was ratified under international law by the San Remo Conference in 1920 and put into treaty law in the Treaty of Sevres in 1922. The League of Nations incorporated all these texts of international law into its Mandates system in the same year.

The UN Security Council resolutions which you trot out — apart from 242/338– are all irrelevant straw men. Mysteriously, they lapsed in 1993. Can you guess why? Nope, you are totally ignorant of this UN history, otherwise you would have mentioned it like the objective analyst you are.

Well… the answer is simple. The UN Security Council changed its mind. Yessirree! It cancelled all condemnations of Israeli “occupation” and passed a new resolution stating Jerusalem is disputed, it must be negotiated at the Camp David negotiations and through the RoadMap Performance Framework.

We come back full circle — you went off half-cocked at the Washington Post because you were suckered by the lying propaganda machine of the Palestine Lobby. Repeat after me — “Jerusalem is not Palestinian territory” and say three times “there is no international law to that effect.”

What about the noble International Court of Justice , I hear you protesting? Repeat after me” “The ICJ is the politicized plaything of the UN General Assembly,” and “the ICJ had no right to opine on matters not specifically referred to it by UNGA.”

Now… go ahead and do the right thing — rewrite your atrocious piece and eat some humble pie.

The claim UNSC resolutions “lapsed” is nonsense. Under international law, all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is “Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem, as the UNSC has observed, is a violation of international law; illegal, null, and void. Those are the facts.

Nonsense. Quote the international law that speaks about “East Jerusalem” being “Palestinian”, an oxymoron if I ever heard one. And I mean a “law.” I will give you $1,000 if you can name this “international law” and its specific title and article. I will also buy you a fur coat if you can tell me when this “international law” was passed. On top of all this, I will treat you to a year’s supply of beer – ‘Milwaukee’s Best’ – if you can locate for me the nearest library or Internet page where I can read this “law.”

On the other hand, if you cannot meet these simple requests, a cold bucket of water awaits you.

December 4, 2010

Jeremy R. Hammond

Quote the international law that speaks of “Quebec” as being “Canadian”. Talk about nonsense.

November 10, 2010

Jeremy R. Hammond

The facts are precisely as I’ve stated them. East Jerusalem is uncontroversially “occupied Palestinian territory”. Israel’s annexation is illegal, and rejected by the international community and U.N. Security Council. The settlements are illegal.

It’s hilarious you assert I’m “ignorant of UN history”, and then roll out the lie as that the UN Security Council “canceled all condemnations of Israeli ‘occupation’ and passed a new resolution stating Jerusalem is disputed”.

You are totally offbase, mouthing laughable assertions without any foundation in fact. UN Security Council resolutions in the last 17 years have not said a word about Israeli “annexation.” Israeli settlements are in fact legal under international law. You should read the Geneva Conventions.

Jerusalemite, why do you limit your references to UNSC resolutions to “the last 17 years”? The fact is the UNSC has repeatedly declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem illegal under international law, and null and void. As the ICJ has noted, all settlements are also illegal, a fact which stems in part from Geneva Convention IV, which explicitly forbids the Occupying Power from transferring parts of its population into the occupied territory (as the ICJ also observed). You know, before telling others to read something, you might want to try reading it yourself, so as not to so embarrass yourself with such idiocy.

Israel is an Occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids Israel from building settlements in the occupied territory (“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”). You can look up “transfer” in any dictionary, if you really don’t know what that means.

Israel is not an Occupying Power as defined under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Secondly, it has not transferred anyone. My friends live there and they were not transferred. Your insinuation is baseless.

December 1, 2010

Jeremy R. Hammond

Israel is an Occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention, as the ICJ has observed, and thus all settlements are illegal.

November 12, 2010

jerusalemitess

There is an error in your reading of Geneva Convention (IV). The type of settlements referred to do not apply to Israeli neighborhoods since they are different. Also, the UNSC resolutions you referred to are ancient history. There are new UNSC resolutions that eliminate the negative wording about Jerusalem.

The facts are as I stated them. As the ICJ has affirmed, the settlements are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This is absolutely non-controversial. The UNSC resolutions I cited remain in effect. Israel’s annexation is not recognized by the international community, as it is illegal and, as the UNSC has declared repeatedly, null and void.

Don’t be disingenuous. U posted the rejections of the ICJ opinion by all the democracies of the world .

December 1, 2010

Jeremy R. Hammond

Absolute nonsense.

December 5, 2010

yael shichror

so how come the US, Canada, and the EU threw the ICJ report in the trash bin?

December 5, 2010

Jeremy R. Hammond

Not sure what that is supposed to mean.

November 13, 2010

Marxian Marxist

I find your latest comment rather bizarre and doctrinaire.

Only a left-wing deviationist would deny that Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism and the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism.

If as you say Jerusalem is an illegal settlement and Palestinian territory, then how come the international community consensus is that The Road Map Negotiations for the Two-state Solution requires Jerusalem to be shared between the Palestinians and Israelis?

Second question: How come the Palestinians have agreed to such negotiations?

You know, there are several United Nations Security Council resolutions
that demand the Palestinians negotiate a deal on Jerusalem. You deliberately falsify the record of international law by failing to incorporate them in your screed.

I find your comment rather bizarre and doctrinaire, Marxian, and only a liar would suggest I ever denied “that Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism and the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism”, because I never did so, as anyone can plainly see.

If you say East Jerusalem is Israeli territory, then how come the international consensus is that under international law, East Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory”, and how come under the Road Map, Jerusalem is to be shared?

I welcome you to produce any UNSC resolution you think invalidates nullifies the numerous resolutions I cited that declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem to be illegal under international law, and null and void. I’ve produced the resolutions that prove my argument. Now produce yours, if you are able.

Have confirmed with UN Secretariat that the UN Sec. Co. resolutions of the last ten years have rendered the previous resolutions you mentioned in your piece inoperative — what they call “in deep freeze” i.e. shelved permanently. Only 242 and 338 calling for Arab countries to end their illegal wars against Israel still stand. They also confirm there is no “international consensus” that East Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory.” This derogatory term emanates from the racist apartheid Arab world which has bludgeoned the bloated UN bureaucracy into using this terminology on pain of blackmail (this information is to be kept strictly confidential).

In response to your query regarding producing the new resolutions that prove my irreproachable commentary, they are as follows:

UNSCR 1392, March 12, 2010 — demanding that the Palestinians cease their terrorism and get back to the negotiating table

UNSCR 1402 — ditto

UNSCR 1505, November 19, 2003, “endorsing the Roadmap
for Negotiations on a Two-State Solution” and “negotiations shall be based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397… taking into account the political and religious concerns of both sides and protecting the interests of Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide.”

UNSCR 1850, December 16, 2008, “declares its commitment to the irreversibility of the bilateral negotiations” designed “to resolve all core issues.” (East Jerusalem is a core issue)

UN Secretariat emphasizes that nowhere in these resolutions does the United Nations Security Council prejudice the status of East Jerusalem by pre-determining it is “occupied Palestinian territory.”

As for the ICJ “opinion”, UN Secretariat states that it is an embarrassing piece of juristic propaganda which every single free world delegation to the UNGA has condemned. Thus, the ICJ opinion has been “trashed” as an obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

If you have any other questions regarding the United Nations, I would be most pleased to assist you. For, it is vitally important that the false consciousness that has alienated you from the truth be speedily jettisoned.

Liar. The facts are as I’ve stated them. That East Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory” is non-controversial, as reflected in the advisory opinion of the ICJ issued upon request of the UN General Assembly. None of the resolutions you cite render the resolutions I cited “inoperative”.

Yes, he did. “My negative votes … should not be seen as reflecting my view that the construction of the wall by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory does not raise serious questions as a matter of international law. I believe it does, and there is much in the Opinion with which I agree…. I share the Court’s conclusion that international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international human rights law are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must there be faithfully complied with by Israel.” Making clear which territory he was referring to by “Occupied Palestinian Territory”, Buergenthal said “the Green Line is accepted by the Court as delimiting the dividing line between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Thus, “Occupied Palestinian Territory” includes East Jerusalem, according Buergenthal.

You continue with ad hominem slurs, Mr. Hammond. Obviously, you are the Liar. Virtually every single commentator on your blog has proven you made a false claim that Jerusalem is Palestinian territory under international law. You were challenged to provide evidence by way of stating the name of this law or laws. You have backpedalled, squirmed, stonewalled and called intelligent international law experts “liars”. The only weak reed you fall back on is the discredited ICJ report. This proves that your case has been destroyed. Jerusalem is the incontrovertible and indisputable eternal capital of the Jewish people and its homeland, Israel.

It’s not an ad hominem. That you are a liar is a demonstrable fact. As the ICJ has observed, under international law, all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is “occupied Palestinian territory”.

Answer the point. If you have no answer, be honest and say so. Diversionary flippancy simply will not do. The UN Charter proves the US is American. The Covenant of the League of Nations proves Switzerland is Swiss.

I do not beat my wife. I am a Muslim Zionist of the Sufi school and have four wives. Your article is founded not only in a fallacy but also on a void premise. The Washington Post is right. Jerusalem is not Palestinian in international law. Go back to school.

November 25, 2010

Jeremy R. Hammond

So, let’s be clear: You deny that you still beat your wife?

Do I really need to explain the fallacy that seems to have passed right over your head, while you tell me to “Go back to school”? Seriously?

November 26, 2010

connie

The international convention setting up the Red Cross proves that switzerland is “Swiss.”

Why are pro Israel fanatics so incredibly dim with respect to the factual record? It’s astonishing how I seem to come across this phenomenon nearly every time I read an article that even hints at some sort of perceived criticism of Israel ie the facts. Great job Jeremy. Thanks.

Tired of being told what to think? Looking for an antidote to mainstream coverage of issues and events?

Join my FREE newsletter to keep up with my work and receive exclusive subscriber-only content, including sneak peeks inside my forthcoming book, Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

First Name

Email

You can unsubscribe at any time, and I respect your privacy (I hate spam, too).

Stay Connected!

Like my work? Leave a tip!

About

a writer of rare skill

-- Barron's

The mainstream media provides information within a very narrow framework that serves to manufacture consent for government policies and stifle meaningful debate on important issues.

I provide analysis and commentary from outside the standard framework, challenging mainstream narratives, exposing government and media propaganda, and broadening the scope of the discussion.